Your Honor, I mentioned this the other day; that I have an objection to them putting in a typing strip that shows alleles where no C dot appears. I believe it was in fact one of the last questions asked of Mr. Sims on his redirect examination where he indicated--and I think the literature will indicate--that when there's no C dot, it's not a reportable result.
My point is that I have an objection to showing the jury any evidence of the strip where there's, you know, dots lining up with no C dot because there is absolutely no scientific foundation whatsoever, even through the Prosecution's own witnesses, for showing this to the jury.
Off the top of my head, three. Now, our witnesses, Mr. Sims and Miss Cotton, have both said that the distinction is between a reportable result and reporting the data that's seen there; and very clearly, Mr. Sims and Miss Cotton each said not having the C dot, all that means is, we can't say that there's not something else there because the C dot is not there as a control. But what's there is there, and we can say this is what we saw and the distinction is between reporting a result, that this is a 1.1, 1.2--
I'm pretty sure it says the same thing. We've had testimony from--I mean this was very specifically elicited to address this.
I think you'll see--I can't remember which result we have, but there's one on the board already. This is in that category.
We already have one of them up there by Robin Cotton. Your Honor, item 7 and 56 are in the same category and his testimony's been in there. It's actually the same phenomenon.
I'm saying, the testimony explained the basis for doing this from both Mr. Sims and--
Yes. First of all, Mr. Sims' testimony--I don't recall Dr. Cotton's precise testimony--but I submit is consistent with the user guide. They take the position it's not reportable, meaning no scientific conclusion can be drawn from it. The fact they don't know the type, don't throw away the strip is just a matter of documentation. The C dot, as indicated in the user guide and is clear from all the testimony, it's supposed to be the weakest dot on the strip. When the C dot is not present, now quoting, an adequate determination of type cannot be made since there's a possibility that other probes seen are also beyond the threshold of detection. The presence of the C dot provides assurance that appropriate typing should be clearly visible. It's clear from the scientific community that if you don't have a C dot, it's not a reliable or accurate result and you can't interpret what you see there because there could be other alleles that are not present. And so the test is, it does not have adequate scientific foundation. Obviously they want to put in results without a C dot to try to draw inferences that they--maybe it is consistent with other results or maybe one can draw some conclusion from it. But there is no scientific testimony and there's no support even in the user guide for their--in terms of proper scientific foundation for doing it. I realize we didn't have a Frye hearing on this, but this one is off the charts.
I have a lot to say on this, your Honor. Mr. Scheck does not speak for the scientific community. You can surely appreciate that. And what he said, we can never say even when the C dot is there that there's not something else there. And we're heard over and over again that all the scientists can say, "I see something there," and then sometimes he can report it. And that's the distinction that he's blurring. When something's there, it's there. It doesn't mean that there couldn't be something else there. That same statement holds true for every result up there. There could always have been something else there.
All right. Counsel, what I propose to do is take your objection under submission. I am going to direct Mr. Harmon not to go into the results this afternoon where there is no C dot indication.
I would like you to provide for me tomorrow morning by 8:30 the quotes in the transcript where it's discussed the validity of presenting to a finder of fact from Sims' and from Cotton's testimony.
I have to tell you, my inclination is that since the user guide says it's not--the user guide says a DNA probe strip with no visible C dot should not be DQ-Alpha typed. So I've got a problem with this. So let's proceed.
KEY QUOTELet me give you another topic that it relates to directly, and this is their real agenda here. These are all results that do not show any 1.1 except for 47. And in addition to showing what's there by showing what's not there, they totally demolish the idea there was this systematic cross-contamination among all these samples. And that's why--and that's why it's important to show what's there.
When the C dot is not present, now quoting, an adequate determination of type cannot be made since there's a possibility that other probes seen are also beyond the threshold of detection.
I have to tell you, my inclination is that since the user guide says it's not--the user guide says a DNA probe strip with no visible C dot should not be DQ-Alpha typed. So I've got a problem with this.
These are all results that do not show any 1.1 except for 47. And in addition to showing what's there by showing what's not there, they totally demolish the idea there was this systematic cross-contamination among all these samples.
There is no scientific testimony and there's no support even in the user guide for their--in terms of proper scientific foundation for doing it. I realize we didn't have a Frye hearing on this, but this one is off the charts.